To: Paul Re: 45 day dispute

Thanks for posting the portion of the FCRA statute that you felt was applicable to the 30 vs. 45 day time for dispute resolution. I actually printed it out for future reference.

I don't believe that I have seen you here on the board before so I and others would sure appreciate it if you would keep us posted if you get any value out of using that portion of the statute in any disputes you may have with the CRA's.

I am not an attorney. Nor do I claim any great legal knowledge. My comment about the 45 day rule was based on something my attorney (friend actually) told me while we were playing golf one day. He reminded me in very simple terms that 2 key elements of a contract are offer and acceptance. In his view when the CRA(s) got my dispute and mailed me the notifying letter; they were in effect ACCEPTING my request to investigate but telling me that they may need up to 45 days. My friend told me that this is perfectly legal. If I have a problem with what the CRA tells me then it is up to me to respond back and tell them how it is going to be. My humble opinion is that the CRA's know the law and that the letter gives them the 45 days when they respond to consumers like me in the manner that they responded.

Again, if you have some fighting the CRA's with the portion of statute you shared with me. Let us know.

I have to disagree w/ the legal analysis. The relationship between a consumer and a CRA for the purpose of conducting an investigation are not governed by a contract. They are regulated by federal law (FCRA).

In practical terms, the consumer has no reason to object to a 45-day investigation. I doubt it would be better for the consumer if they removed it on day 30 only to re-insert it on day 45 upon verification.

I'm new on here (1st post this week), and new to the world of proactive credit management <g>...

I have a story very similar to many on here.. period of bad luck (and probably some bad judgment in my case).. and consequently looking at a FICO of 639, a bankruptcy from 1992, 2 judgments in 1995, and 3 x 30 day lates on a mortgage in 1998...

I had been until recently, able to achieve most of my goals financially, though it took more explaining and selling of myself than would be needed by most...

I began filing my disputes after doing some research, and contacting an attorney (who basically said he would help me, but I could do it myself if organized and persistent), and am waiting on the results of my first dispute with each of the 3 bureaus (the 3 x 30 day lates in 1998).

I will most definitely keep everyone updated as to whether or not the 30 day time period carries any weight, as I will be testing the statute shortly (now in the 27th and 28th days since they signed for my disputes).

I intend to call each bureau on the 31st day from the date they received my dispute (which I believe is the date the statute uses for starting the 30 day clock) if I haven't heard from them, and demand that they remove the items immediately, as well as follow up with a letter which I may mail a day or two early so it gets there around day 31...

Saar - Keep in mind that in the United States many times a business relationship is regulated by case law and statutory law. For example, the UCC broadly regulates purchase transactions as a Federal statute. However, states may add to or in some cases change the law. Then case law can go all the way to the Supreme Court and make further changes.

New York apparently has a different Statute of Limitations on the reporting of some credit items than the rest of the country.

When I filed for BK, I did it under CA law not Federal law as I had the choice.

If I award you a purchase order in a commercial setting and you mail it back to me with changes and I don't respond in 30 days - your changes are made to the purchase order.

I agree that it is a federal statute issue, rather than a contract issue.

As for objecting to 45 days when the law seems to indicate 30 (unless the consumer provides additional info needed to conduct the dispute, which brings it to 45), I would think that depends on whether or not the consumer is under some time constraint..

In my situation, I was denied a loan based on 3 30 day lates from 1998, but the lender (First Union) stated that they would do my deal if I could show the entries no longer on my bureau. This was all the incentive I needed to monitor that 30 day clock!

<<<<In practical terms, the consumer has no reason to object to a 45-day investigation. I doubt it would be better for the consumer if they removed it on day 30 only to re-insert it on day 45 upon verification

I am going to look for your posts. I think you are pursuing a very interesting path here.

One thing I would like to mention. Don't get frustrated with anyone ( not that you would) on the board. Everyone has a different level of expertise here. We are all learning and sharing ideas here. I have been very grateful for this board and I only stumbled on it by chance 6 months ago.

Although you've brought up classic preemption issues ("interstate commerce") between federal & state legislatures, it's not necessary to discuss it any further, since it was not suggested by anyone (not even you) that there's a conflict of federal and state law in this matter.

Saar, you are not the only one reading the board here. There is more to this than just a simple minded relationship between the consumer + FCRA + CRA. A thinking man or woman does not assume that just because "Saar says it" or "Jim says it" it must be true.

If you choose to decide that "it is not necessary to discuss it any further"; then don't. But don't tell me what to say buddy.

I was merely trying to make a point, but did not expand on it because no conflict of laws was implied. That's why I said it's not necessary. It's just my view, and I did not suggest you can't respond. On the contrary, your posts are very helpful.